AMD Radeon RX Vega Put Through 3DMark

[efikkan]

Price this to 1060 levels and they will sale like hotcakes.

Then how will AMD make a profit?

 

[DRDNA]

I have been meditating on this whole thing and I think just maybe this is the introductory to what AMD is going to do NEXT with this technology. I have a feeling they are running this release as a huge mas abduction of people who are buying into this new GPU to be their develop testers for this whole strange mess of a release....I can't see any other reason for what is happening unless this card is their entry level card! AMD and their GPU release is very confusing as to what they are up to.

 

[RejZoR]

Again, from what we've seen of Vega Frontier Edition, if you expect drivers to make up a 30%+ difference in performance you guys need to adjust your thinking.

Let me ask you something, how fast do you think GTX 1080Ti would be if you slam GTX 980 drivers on it? We're not talking game optimizations here, never had. It's drivers actually working with all new architecture. This is the other thing people don't seem to be realizing. It's always GCN this, GCN that, apparently thinking that if it's GCN, they don't even have to write new drivers at all. C'mon people, are you dumb? It's not how things work. Vega FE was never meant to be a gaming card. Period. Look at pro benchmarks they did on Vega FE. It works spectacularly well. But for gaming, a total dud. Now, what does that tell you? That something is very wrong with the chip or with the drivers that (as far as games are concerned) don't even work, let alone work well? And yet people go on and on about same thing that drivers just can't deliver any changes anymore. That's like slamming R9 290X drivers on GTX 1080 and just expect it to do anything. What makes you think Vega doesn't require same level of attention from driver side as it would jumps between NV and AMD? Vega is a huge leap from Hawaii or Fiji core. You can't just slam a driver on it and voila, it'll magically make insane performance out of freaking thin air.

 

[cdawall]

Let me ask you something, how fast do you think GTX 1080Ti would be if you slam GTX 980 drivers on it? We're not talking game optimizations here, never had. It's drivers actually working with all new architecture. This is the other thing people don't seem to be realizing. It's always GCN this, GCN that, apparently thinking that if it's GCN, they don't even have to write new drivers at all. C'mon people, are you dumb? It's not how things work. Vega FE was never meant to be a gaming card. Period. Look at pro benchmarks they did on Vega FE. It works spectacularly well. But for gaming, a total dud. Now, what does that tell you? That something is very wrong with the chip or with the drivers that (as far as games are concerned) don't even work, let alone work well? And yet people go on and on about same thing that drivers just can't deliver any changes anymore. That's like slamming R9 290X drivers on GTX 1080 and just expect it to do anything. What makes you think Vega doesn't require same level of attention from driver side as it would jumps between NV and AMD? Vega is a huge leap from Hawaii or Fiji core. You can't just slam a driver on it and voila, it'll magically make insane performance out of freaking thin air.

Considering Pascal is just an efficient Maxwell it would likely be just fine.

2 years ago amd showed us vega actively running. In two years amd can't make a driver?

In 4 years will they finally have it nailed down as they move away from slightly modified gcn? I mean how long do they need. This market isn't for lagging behind.

 

[EarthDog]

Let me ask you something, how fast do you think GTX 1080Ti would be if you slam GTX 980 drivers on it? We're not talking game optimizations here, never had. It's drivers actually working with all new architecture. This is the other thing people don't seem to be realizing. It's always GCN this, GCN that, apparently thinking that if it's GCN, they don't even have to write new drivers at all. C'mon people, are you dumb? It's not how things work. Vega FE was never meant to be a gaming card. Period. Look at pro benchmarks they did on Vega FE. It works spectacularly well. But for gaming, a total dud. Now, what does that tell you? That something is very wrong with the chip or with the drivers that (as far as games are concerned) don't even work, let alone work well? And yet people go on and on about same thing that drivers just can't deliver any changes anymore. That's like slamming R9 290X drivers on GTX 1080 and just expect it to do anything. What makes you think Vega doesn't require same level of attention from driver side as it would jumps between NV and AMD? Vega is a huge leap from Hawaii or Fiji core. You can't just slam a driver on it and voila, it'll magically make insane performance out of freaking thin air.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut a 1080 never had 980Ti drivers on it. Nor will Vega have Polaris drivers...

Certainly optimizations are in store down the road, but, 30% change after release is unheard of. Several %... with you.

What the Vega Pro results tell me is THOSE drivers are optimized for the Pro card and not gaming. Those are also NOT the drivers which RX Vega will be using on release day. Only time will tell, but, I can't make that leap with you.. not logical.

 

[jabbadap]

Nordichardware has some rumors about pricing. 7000 SEK(~$850) without VAT and 9000 SEK(~$1098) inc. VAT.

 

[SPLWF]

I'm still getting it but AIB versions. Remember AMD drivers mature really well. R290(x)/390(x)/Fury still perform to this day.

 

[I No]

I'm still getting it but AIB versions. Remember AMD drivers mature really well. R290(x)/390(x)/Fury still perform to this day.

Gee and I wonder why that's the case. Could it be that half of the line-up was actually a rebrand and they all share the same architecture? This whole "finewine" BS will have to stop at some point. AMD's doing that because they cannot sustain (budget wise) a whole new arch every gen. If they decide to streamline Vega as their next "backbone" arch you can kiss the aggressive support for older cards buh-bye.

 

[ratirt]

Again, from what we've seen of Vega Frontier Edition, if you expect drivers to make up a 30%+ difference in performance you guys need to adjust your thinking.

I didn't say it will happen but I'm sure AMD is at least giving a shot and try since 1080 TI showed up. I'm sure this is what others think about too. If AMD can pull this one off i don't know. We'll find out soon.
I don't need to adjust my thinking cause it's my thinking. Getting all the information in one picture and it is reasonable from my perspective at least. That's what the delay may be about but not necessarily and i know a lot people on this form been saying this. I don't know if that's what it is. Nobody knows even You. all speculations. So please don't say noting is possible. Not all is drivers you know.

Let me ask you something, how fast do you think GTX 1080Ti would be if you slam GTX 980 drivers on it? We're not talking game optimizations here, never had. It's drivers actually working with all new architecture. This is the other thing people don't seem to be realizing. It's always GCN this, GCN that, apparently thinking that if it's GCN, they don't even have to write new drivers at all. C'mon people, are you dumb? It's not how things work. Vega FE was never meant to be a gaming card. Period. Look at pro benchmarks they did on Vega FE. It works spectacularly well. But for gaming, a total dud. Now, what does that tell you? That something is very wrong with the chip or with the drivers that (as far as games are concerned) don't even work, let alone work well? And yet people go on and on about same thing that drivers just can't deliver any changes anymore. That's like slamming R9 290X drivers on GTX 1080 and just expect it to do anything. What makes you think Vega doesn't require same level of attention from driver side as it would jumps between NV and AMD? Vega is a huge leap from Hawaii or Fiji core. You can't just slam a driver on it and voila, it'll magically make insane performance out of freaking thin air.

It's like intel and it's 7700k vs 7800X. Same CPU and look at the performance. Only cache has changed and how it has affected IPC. I agree with you. Nothing has been decided yet. RX vega may be faster but not necessarily. We'll find out. I honestly hope it will be faster than 1080 by a noticeable margin. Let's hope.

 

[Parn]

375W TDP compared to ~180W of an GTX1080, hmmm no thanks.

Even if the price is £50 lower than that of an GTX1080 I think I'll still pass. Having a 375W TDP GPU in the box requires better PSU and better cooling for the other components and these translate to an overall higher price.

 

[ratirt]

375W TDP compared to ~180W of an GTX1080, hmmm no thanks.

Even if the price is £50 lower than that of an GTX1080 I think I'll still pass. Having a 375W TDP GPU in the box requires better PSU and better cooling for the other components and these translate to an overall higher price.

I don't exactly know what you are after but when putting a rig together even 2 years ago and you wanted to have a decent PC experience you must go for a PSU at least 650W which is enough for the Vega for sure. All I need to do is just swap the card no other enhancements to my rig so cant see the higher price. Unless you're talking about power consumption.

 

[EarthDog]

The problem there.... it isnt 2 years ago....and that isnt quite true either. The 980 was a great 1080p/1440 card 2 years ago at 165W. A quality 500W psu was plenty for that, an intel i7, and overclocking while still having headroom. 375W gpu and an intel chip can mean a different psu if you are in the 600W or less range...especially when overclocking cpu and gpu.

 

[ratirt]

The problem there.... it isnt 2 years ago....and that isnt quite true either. The 980 was a great 1080p/1440 card 2 years ago at 165W. A quality 500W psu was plenty for that, an intel i7, and overclocking while still having headroom. 375W gpu and an intel chip can mean a different psu if you are in the 600W or less range...especially when overclocking cpu and gpu.

I know it's not it's just I don't understand the argument. Look at your PSU and his? 1000Watt 660/750Watt. What the hell you guys are complaining about more power draw more money spent. If it's not the power consumption costs then this is pointless. 375W and OMG what PSU I would buy for that. Both you and the other got way more power than needed. If Intel is stressing your PSU too much go with Ryzen it doesn't but with your PSU I wouldn't worry.

BTW. the 2 years mark I mentioned? I don't recall anyone buying PSU lower than 650 Watts. Anyone. Its like a standard 650W and up. not even sure if the power demands for a PC are getting lower within the time I guess they should but more performance equals more power.

 

[EarthDog]

Look.. your assertion you "must" have "at least" a 650w psu two years ago for a "decent" pc is patently false is my point.

As i went on to say, anyone with a 600w psu or less, will likely want an upgrade if they decide to use the 375w(stock) monster.

As for me... im a reviewer..the review rig with 1kw psu is of ZERO matter in this case. My daily driver with 750w.... i used to run a 500w card (295x2) and 5820k, both overclocked a couple years back. But this, i thought clearly, wasnt about me or him specifically but about general users/use. Come on, get your head out of the minutia and look from a more broad perspective...

 

[Slizzo]

I know it's not it's just I don't understand the argument. Look at your PSU and his? 1000Watt 660/750Watt. What the hell you guys are complaining about more power draw more money spent. If it's not the power consumption costs then this is pointless. 375W and OMG what PSU I would buy for that. Both you and the other got way more power than needed. If Intel is stressing your PSU too much go with Ryzen it doesn't but with your PSU I wouldn't worry.

BTW. the 2 years mark I mentioned? I don't recall anyone buying PSU lower than 650 Watts. Anyone. Its like a standard 650W and up. not even sure if the power demands for a PC are getting lower within the time I guess they should but more performance equals more power.

Be aware that a PSU running at 50% capacity is usually running at it's most efficient. I have an 850W PSU, do I need it? Hell no. But I know the PSU will last a long while as it's not being stressed at all, and it is providing its' cleanest power at it's load, and it is running its' best at current load.

 

[EarthDog]

Be aware that a PSU running at 50% capacity is usually running at it's most efficient.

This is true, but the difference between 20% and 90% is VERY small efficiency wise. On your PSU, it's less than 1%. A 650W unit is plenty for 99% of people running single GPU and CPU with overclocking (ambient). Would have saved your $40 and you wouldn't have noticed a thing.

I prefer to save my money on initial outgoing. Its why I ran(run) a 750W PSU with a 500W card and 140W CPU...and I overclocked both. I did see the fan spin up!!! That's it. Most people would have run out and bought AT LEAST a 900W PSU (AMD rec. 1KW). I don't believe in overbuying on the PSU unless you plan on adding another card in the future for SLI/CFx...

 

[N3M3515]

I have a 750w psu, at least for 6 years, and i'm no reviewer or power user, just like to be prepared. Anyone who buys highend gpu, from 2010 likely has at least a 650w psu....

That being said, i don't like that 375W of the vega....too much. Now that i pay the power bill i can feel the extra bucks the gpu packs.

 

[ratirt]

Look.. your assertion you "must" have "at least" a 650w psu two years ago for a "decent" pc is patently false is my point.

As i went on to say, anyone with a 600w psu or less, will likely want an upgrade if they decide to use the 375w(stock) monster.

As for me... im a reviewer..the review rig with 1kw psu is of ZERO matter in this case. My daily driver with 750w.... i used to run a 500w card (295x2) and 5820k, both overclocked a couple years back. But this, i thought clearly, wasn't about me or him specifically but about general users/use. Come on, get your head out of the minutia and look from a more broad perspective...

Ok i'm not and that is why i got 650w. Why is it that whatever you guys say must be correct. I haven't seen for ages lower PSU than 650 and this is what i share. And of course i get this answers.
For example i got an 780 Ti. Stock needs at least 600 Watts PSU. Release date 2013 of course that's the stock OC'ed like mine would require way more. Please stop being like that and neglect everything people say just because you think different.

I have a 750w psu, at least for 6 years, and i'm no reviewer or power user, just like to be prepared. Anyone who buys highend gpu, from 2010 likely has at least a 650w psu....

That being said, i don't like that 375W of the vega....too much. Now that i pay the power bill i can feel the extra bucks the gpu packs.

I totally agree. Don't like it either but it's not surprising that people will buy stronger PSU's even if they are not power users nor anything. If you buy less then it's probably someone was getting your computer put together and didn't wanted you to strain your wallet extensively. The fact stays here it's been 650W minimum god knows for how long now.

Be aware that a PSU running at 50% capacity is usually running at it's most efficient. I have an 850W PSU, do I need it? Hell no. But I know the PSU will last a long while as it's not being stressed at all, and it is providing its' cleanest power at it's load, and it is running its' best at current load.

That's the other side of the coin. Minimum doesn't mean 50% of the PSU's power. Still that's a minimum. You don't need it yet you got it. So i guess you need it for some reason.

 

[EarthDog]

Rat...lol... man, get over it . I disagreed with your point and supported my stance on why. You can choose to agree or disagree. What you see is what you see and what I see is what I see. That doesn't mean either of us are right in this case (opinions can of course be wrong!)

I'm glad you haven't seen lower PSU than 650 and you shared it. All I very clearly stated was "...anyone with a 600W PSU or less..." in TWO posts...

...can mean a different psu if you are in the 600W or less range...especially when overclocking cpu and gpu

...anyone with a 600w psu or less, will likely want an upgrade if they decide to use the 375w(stock) monster.

Those people, the lot of them you see, with 650W+ won't have to upgrade as you said. Those that have less, will need to consider/do it. Its really easy, my point.

The fact stays here it's been 650W minimum god knows for how long now.

Depends man... the 980 "requires" a 500W PSU. It can be said, as a fact, more people buy the 2nd card through midrange than the flagship, which require less power and PSU capacity as well... 2 years ago the 9 series was almost a year old (980). The 7 series you are referencing says 600W to the 770 as well. Below that, its 500W or less again.

Many are prepared with what they have, but many may not be.

 

[ratirt]

Rat...lol... man, get over it . I disagreed with your point and supported my stance on why. You can choose to agree or disagree. What you see is what you see and what I see is what I see. That doesn't mean either of us are right in this case (opinions can of course be wrong!)

I'm glad you haven't seen lower PSU than 650 and you shared it. All I very clearly stated was "...anyone with a 600W PSU or less..." in TWO posts...



Those people, the lot of them you see, with 650W+ won't have to upgrade as you said. Those that have less, will need to consider/do it. Its really easy, my point.

Depends man... the 980 "requires" a 500W PSU. It can be said, as a fact, more people buy the 2nd card through midrange than the flagship, which require less power and PSU capacity as well... 2 years ago the 9 series was almost a year old (980). The 7 series you are referencing says 600W to the 770 as well. Below that, its 500W or less again.

Many are prepared with what they have, but many may not be.

And i supported mine saying 650W is a minimum and it has been like that for quite a while. So can say same thing. Get over it Dog What you want me to say. You are right? Well you are not.
yeah it does need that much. but doesn't change a thing. PSU is one of the important stuff in the computer.

 

[EarthDog]

You really don't need to say anything. I just have a differing opinion and supported my assertion. My apologies if that struck a nerve.

You are right? Well you are not.

I am spot on with my main talking point...

As i went on to say, anyone with a 600w psu or less, will likely want an upgrade if they decide to use the 375w(stock) monster.

I'm not going to continue to debate the efficacy of how many 650W+ PSUs are in the wild versus less than that... its an impossible thing to do. So I simply supported why I thought otherwise... you did the same... except, appear to have taken offense to the discussion...

 

[efikkan]

Let me ask you something, how fast do you think GTX 1080Ti would be if you slam GTX 980 drivers on it? We're not talking game optimizations here, never had. It's drivers actually working with all new architecture. This is the other thing people don't seem to be realizing. It's always GCN this, GCN that, apparently thinking that if it's GCN, they don't even have to write new drivers at all. C'mon people, are you dumb? It's not how things work.

Irrelevant.
Drivers translate API calls into ISA operations. A driver from a previous generation would work or not work. If a part of the ISA is changed, then the old driver wouldn't work bad, it would fail.

Vega FE was never meant to be a gaming card. Period.

You know very well it was never intended for gamers, but for game developers. Vega FE and RX Vega will do similarly in gaming.

Look at pro benchmarks they did on Vega FE. It works spectacularly well. But for gaming, a total dud. Now, what does that tell you? That something is very wrong with the chip or with the drivers that (as far as games are concerned) don't even work, let alone work well? And yet people go on and on about same thing that drivers just can't deliver any changes anymore.

That's not something new. There have always been some compute benchmarks where GCN does well. The mistake is that you claim Vega sucks because the drivers are immature, which is ridiculous.

 

[ratirt]

Found this.
Wonder if you guys had a chance to read this.
http://wccftech.com/amds-raja-kodur...e-rx-vega-gaming-cards-july-launch-confirmed/
In the article - AMD’s Jason Evangelho said that gamers should not draw conclusions of RX Vega gaming performance base on Vega FE card benchmark. tells a lot in my opinion.

 

[Th3pwn3r]

Then how will AMD make a profit?

AMD will be lucky to break even considering how much crap Vega is getting/is in.

 

[mandelore]

Hopefully we will see what Vega 64 can do in crossfire even if AMD are backing away from it, because at this moment my 2014 crossfire setup on stock settings is pulling around 24k in firestrike 1.1.

Vega does not look like a viable upgrade so far, but if the crossfire performance is there, for the stated price I think id grab 2 of them, slap some custom waterblocks on and enjoy a bit more breathing room with an expanded memory usually enjoyed by the green side. Which is also a bit rediculous since technically between a 295X2 and R9290x I have 12Gb GDDR5